Sunday, July 12, 2009

SHUT UP! COMING IN THE OBAMA WIND

Liberal talking point- Shut up
BY KLAVAN
Since the beginning of my now not-so-new political obsession, liberals have consistently failed to prove themselves to be informed, logical, or anything you’d expect from someone with strong political views. The logic is filled with fallacies, the information used is either false or used improperly, and they rarely take the time to work through your arguments. When a liberal does end up listening and thinking analytically about the information and logic presented, they resort to a step by step rebuttal, which is as follows:
A) They question your sources.
B) They say they will have to look at those sources to decide for themselves, but never actually do.
C) They go on to either straw-man your argument or jump immediately to step D
D) After explaining how they straw-manned your argument, they result to the age old liberal talking point: Shut up.
In one form or another, it is “Shut up.” Some are more polite than others, quickly changing the subject or writing you off as uninformed or simply “wrong”. Some are more blunt. They respond with curse words, insults, or accuse you of lying (you know who you are). Very rarely can you find a die-hard liberal who will admit defeat as you watch their soul become crushed under the weight of truth. Always remember, the best way to cure those with liberal delusions is to be calm, act civil, and be well prepared with quips and facts. For the sake of needing to fill more room, I will give a few of my favorite liberal logical fallacies:
Ad hominem: This is a fallacy where they do not address your argument, but instead attack you as a person. It can come in many forms, ranging from writing off your argument because you are young, old, go to a certain school, don’t have a particular degree, to directly insulting you as a means of trying to feel superior (sort of like the elementary school shouting matches). Either way, they don’t address your argument because they either they cannot comprehend it or they know they cannot prove it wrong. It is intellectual bankruptcy at its finest (or worst.)
Example: “Of course, we’re supposed to believe Derek here because he is A Pure And Pious Christian Boy Who Would Never Ever Ever Make S*** Up.”
Appeal to Authority: This occurs when their argument is that someone who is in a position of authority agrees with them (doctor, politician, professor, etc). While it is acceptable to use professional testimony as support for an argument, it cannot be used to replace it. Just because one person agrees with you does not make your particular view correct. Often times there is disagreement within a particular field, or the professional they cite either is not an expert on the issue at hand or is in disagreement with most of his/her colleagues.
Example: “Well I am sure Obama knows more about the economy than you.” (We all know this isn’t true.)
False Dichotomy: This is where there are only two options are presented when there are in fact more. Often times this is an attempt for them to accept your position over an equally bad option by trying to make you think you have to choose between the two evils.
Example: “Either we cut taxes for everyone or we cut taxes for no one.” (How about eliminate all taxes but a national sales tax?)
Slothful Induction: This is the fallacy where they call a claim false despite the bountiful amount of evidence that has been presented that says otherwise. Usually this is just the end of the discussion because their head is full of rocks and cannot be penetrated. This is the most common form of “Shut up.”
Example: “All it is evidence of is that these sources are all repeating the same claim that Derek is parroting.” (Hence, they are sources of the same information. Evidence.)
Argument from ignorance: This fallacy is used when something is not know or cannot be adequately supported but is heralded as true. It often times comes into play in theological discussions (the “we don’t know for sure” statements.)
Example: “If you ask why a given nucleus decayed at one particular moment rather than some other, there is no answer. The event “just happened” at that moment.” (Just because we have no answer does not mean that there is no answer.)
Moving goalpost: This fallacy is extremely common. It is used as a means to discredit your argument while keeping theirs intact. This fallacy occurs when they move the qualification of adequate proof to beyond what is necessary or, sometimes, even possible. They present some evidence, call it proof, but when you provide evidence of greater or equal value as theirs, they disregard it as not good enough.
Example: “What “respected news source”? CNS? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!”
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. This fallacy is commonly called “confusing correlation with causation”. This is where time is used as a reference in the sequence: A occurred, then B happened. Therefore, A caused B. Obviously, just because something occurs prior to another event does not mean that it is the cause. It would be like if every time a dog barked, a few seconds later, there was a crack of thunder. Did the dog’s bark cause the thunder? Of course not, it was just coincidence.
Example: “Well Bush was in office during the market crash so clearly it is his fault” (There were a number of causes, none of which Bush took part in, from Carter’s to Community Reinvestment Act to the Fed’s involvement.)
Straw Man: This is where your opponent does not address your reasoning or argues against a different argument that you did not make. Often times liberals do this because they have talking points prepared for only a couple arguments (that no one in their right mind ever makes) so when presented with something they don’t have a programmed response for, they fill in blanks and argue against them to try and gain ground. The easiest response when someone straw-mans you is “You didn’t address anything I said straw man”.
Example: “The Big Bang (even if you were correct) does not argue for an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good being who became human and died on a cross for us.” (Never claimed it did, straw man.)
In the end, liberals will continue to spew their illogical notions and tell those of us with uncommon sense to “Shut up.” Be prepared, and don’t shut up.

About Me

For many years involved with intelligence and security matters in Iran with significant access at top levels during the rule of the Shah, until early 1979. Currently an Iran SME (subject matter expert), analyst/commentator, and multi-linguist.